Whistleblowers

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner in the Chair]

10:54

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the contribution of whistleblowers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Last week we marked World Whistleblower Day, so it is only right that we come together in this place to recognise the contribution that whistleblowers make to our society. Time and again, whistleblowers bravely expose wrongdoing, often at great personal and professional risk. Whistleblowers are key to alerting law enforcement agencies about criminal activity, and they play a crucial role in delivering successful prosecutions.

We all know that whistleblowers on the inside are often the most valuable sources of information, notably when it concerns illicit financial activities. Indeed, 43% of fraud was detected by tip-offs last year. The Serious Fraud Office frequently cites whistleblowers as a vital source of information for its investigations, and over half of whistleblowing reports received by the Financial Conduct Authority led to regulatory action by the watchdog last year.

With all that in mind, to open the debate, I would like to focus on one particular whistleblower: Raphaël Halet. That case shows the real impact that whistleblowers can have, bringing about positive change in society by shining a spotlight on issues of public concern—in this instance, aggressive tax avoidance. Ten years ago, Mr Halet, then a PricewaterhouseCoopers employee, revealed documents to the press that exposed a major global network of tax avoidance schemes based out of the tax haven of Luxembourg. These shocking revelations captured headlines around the world and quickly grew into a bigger scandal known as the LuxLeaks.

The documents that Mr Halet leaked exposed the secret deals used by hundreds of the world’s largest companies—firms like Pepsi, IKEA, Amazon and Disney—to reduce their tax bills to next to nothing. These leaks helped to set the stage for ongoing efforts to impose a minimum global tax on corporations and, eventually, for a ruling last year by the European Court of Justice, which ordered the corporate giant Apple to return about $14 billion of unpaid taxes in Ireland.

However, those documents became the subject of criminal charges in Luxembourg against Mr Halet. Thankfully, 10 years later, he was exonerated, alongside the other two LuxLeaks whistleblowers. I firmly believe that those leaks have helped the European Union to improve whistleblower protections and ensure that future whistleblowers do not unjustly face criminal charges.

Here in the UK, despite the important contribution of whistleblowers, individuals often lose their job when they come forward, simply because the existing legal framework lacks sufficient protections. As it stands, just 4% of whistleblowers in the UK win their cases if they are unfairly dismissed by their employer. I am quite sure that this deters any would-be whistleblower from ever speaking up and speaking truth to power. Our current framework also fails to adequately respond to whistleblowing. Employers are not duty-bound to have whistleblowing arrangements or to investigate when a whistleblower reports. Over 40% of the whistleblowers that Protect, which is the UK’s leading whistleblowing charity, spoke to in 2024 reported that they had been ignored.

To ensure that whistleblowers are better listened to, the Government should consider introducing a legal duty for companies to hold investigations into legitimate whistleblower concerns. This proposal has strong cross-party support, including from Sir Robert Buckland, the former Conservative Justice Secretary; Baroness Hodge of Barking, a former Labour Minister; and a former Liberal Democrat Cabinet Minister, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who joins us today. I expect there will also be support from Members who speak later in the debate.

Ignoring or failing to protect whistleblowers carries not just a human cost but a financial one. The Protect charity found that ignoring whistleblowers in just three scandals—the Post Office Horizon scandal, the Countess of Chester scandal and the Carillion scandal—cost the taxpayer a combined £423 million in the long run, which is a staggering figure. That could have funded the construction of 14 new schools, or even run a prison for some 20 years.

As I have said, speaking up can have career-ending and life-altering consequences. Whistleblowers often suffer immense professional, personal and psychological harm. The contribution of whistleblowers is huge, so we should offer fairness in return. That is why I support creating a whistleblower award initiative, as part of a comprehensive set of reforms to better protect and listen to whistleblowers.

The Royal United Services Institute has found that the United States and Canadian whistleblower award programmes, accompanied by safeguards and protections, as well as well-resourced regulators, have successfully increased the number of whistleblowers coming forward, enhanced law enforcement outcomes and improved the rates of financial recovery. This Government have already indicated that they recognise the potential benefits of introducing such rewards here in the UK. Just over a year ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), the shadow Foreign Secretary at the time, said that he would launch a new whistleblower award scheme to incentivise and encourage sources to step forward.

That is a commitment that we all want to see, and it is exactly where we should open today’s debate. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on current thinking on whistleblower awards nearly one year into government. It is clear from all the evidence—I expect that we will hear much more today—that we need to do far more to collectively support, protect, reward and, most importantly, listen to whistleblowers.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that if they wish to catch my eye to speak in the debate, they must bob. That would help me enormously. I call Mr Jim Shannon. [Interruption.]

14:37

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

14:51

On resuming—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for setting the scene so well, as he often does on these issues. I have spoken in previous debates on this topic, and it is an important issue for me.

The Minister and I were talking as we walked up to vote, and he reminded me of the story I am going to tell—a true story of a friend who was a whistleblower, and the effect it had on him personally, physically, emotionally and financially. Ultimately, it affected all his family. I will tell the story without mentioning his last name, but I will use his first name for the purposes of the debate.

Whistleblowing is a risk internally in any organisation in the public, private or voluntary sectors—it can affect us all. We probably all have many examples to give, and that is the point. The idea is to expose problems that may arise, such as fraud, violations, discrimination or downright corruption. There are provisions in place, and I believe in the protection of whistleblowers, so I very much look forward to discussing this issue. We just left the Chamber to vote on Lords amendments—a different focus in respect of a different Bill, obviously, but whistleblowing was the central theme of the discussions.

In a previous debate on this matter, I went into detail about a close friend of mine. His name was Brian, and that is all I will say, other than that we were friends from childhood the whole way through. He is sadly no longer with us. To give a brief reminder, Brian was a childhood friend who had suffered greatly due to his experience as a whistleblower. I fought a whole campaign for him, right through to meeting the companies that were involved. I knew the stress that Brian had. I also knew the physical impact it had on him.

Brian was a wonderful person. I use his story as an example of how people can be penalised for doing the right thing. I know the Minister knows the story well and that he will respond, as he always does, with help and compassion on the issues that we try to expound in Westminster Hall and in the Chamber. The right thing may not always be a natural choice for some, but for Brian it was never in dispute. He was committed to doing the right thing when he became aware of what was happening at that time.

I stand proud of Brian for the sacrifice he made in doing things properly and by the book, and for sticking rigidly to opposing what he knew was wrong the whole way through the system. Brian was a strapping big guy— six foot, and a rugby player at school, he was physically strong—and I would have thought he was mentally strong too. Unfortunately, the whistleblowing weakened him not only physically but emotionally.

I stand here as a supporter of protection for those who, like Brian, dare to speak truth to higher authority and take it the whole way through the system. When something is wrong, they have the guts, the courage and the commitment to do what is right, even when adversity stares them in the eye. Trust is earned, but protection is an entitlement for those who raise issues that could be of detriment to the greater good.

It is also a reality that many feel they cannot bring to superiors the issues of concern they wish to bring, in order to use the process as it is laid out. That is where the legislation must be strengthened, which is why I welcome what the Government are doing to ensure that protections are in place and that people do not feel intimidated or frightened to speak the truth. That should never happen in this world. We should protect people in every way from what can overtake them, as it did in Brian’s case. He got justice in the end, but it took its toll.

For Northern Ireland specifically, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 is the primary legislation used for protecting whistleblowers. It makes it unlawful for employers to dismiss workers or subject them to detriment because they have made a protected disclosure. A protected disclosure should be exactly what it says: there should be no feedback and no comeback, and they should be able to do something that, legally, they are able to do under the law, to highlight something that is wrong in a company. That legislation applies to both the private and public sector.

A UK legal study found that 73% of whistleblowers reported feeling victimised or, indeed, felt forced to resign, with many suffering significant anxiety and depression. That is what happened to Brian. Furthermore, there is no doubt about the mental toll that whistleblowing can take in terms of post-traumatic stress disorder and trauma. Nobody should have to feel that way about raising concerns that they feel need to be looked at or addressed.

I think of the experiences that my friend went through—the health issues he experienced and the downward trend in health. He was under emotional pressure and the anxiety levels were incredibly high. He also suffered financially. He was a high-flyer in a well-known company. His earnings back in the ’80s were at a level that I could only have dreamed about at that age. He suffered financially and his farm suffered financially, and the outcome was a smaller house. He was a family man, and his family were growing up at the time.

I think of the exceptional financial and physical problems that he suffered because he took an exceptional stand. Nobody should have to face losing everything for doing what they believe is right. I see it as a brave thing to question potential wrongdoing, and I know the Minister does as well. We need more protections in place. I look to the Minister, as I always do, for his commitment, which I know is forthcoming.

As always, I also ask whether the Minister has had the opportunity to speak to the relevant Ministers in the devolved Administrations, to ensure that the commitment of Ministers here will be the same as the ones made in Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as in Scotland and Wales. Will the Minister engage with the devolved institutions to ensure that we have strong legislation surrounding this issue across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? That is the reason why I am here—I am here because of Brian.

14:59

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this debate. As is well known, I worked as a solicitor prior to coming to this place, and I advised a significant number of clients on whistleblowing matters. Based on that experience, I think my hon. Friend is quite right that whistleblowers make an immense contribution to society and that their protection is extremely important.

I will take this opportunity to highlight two gaps in the law as I saw them in practice. The first relates to who is covered by the existing law. The EU whistleblowing directive would have introduced in this country coverage for self-employed people under the purview of the whistleblowing Act, but of course we have left the EU, so I assume we will not be implementing it. That is a terrible shame, because self-employed people are really important in this picture.

I have some casework relevant to this matter that I cannot refer to because it is going through tribunal, but in 2022 Inside Housing magazine found that, post Grenfell, fire risk assessors were coming under pressure from their employers or, if they were self-employed, their commissioners to downgrade their assessment of fire risk in social housing, because it is so expensive to remediate. In other words, fire risk assessors were whistleblowing that they were concerned that, when they had to make a professional judgment about danger, they were being put under pressure to assess things as being less dangerous than they actually were.

A lot of fire risk assessors are self-employed and are incredibly vulnerable, particularly if they have a major social housing client, as many do. They have all the vulnerability of being a whistleblower but none of the protection of employment legislation. They also work for other people, so they are not an employee and may not meet the definition of worker, so they are currently completely excluded. Protect has been campaigning for us to introduce protection into the law, and the EU has recognised that we need protection in law for self-employed people who whistleblow. I would very much like to see the law changed. It would be in the best interests of the whole country and everybody’s safety if we did so.

The second problem with whistleblowing law is that it is hard to advise a client that it is worth their taking the risk to bring a case because it is very difficult to prove reliably that what caused the breakdown of the relationship with their employer is the fact that they whistleblew. Employers understandably do not want to admit that their employee was mistreated because they whistleblew, to the extent that they systematically delude themselves about why that person was excluded and subsequently dismissed.

There are two ways in which that happens. In a financial services context, I have seen a person’s performance being heavily criticised as “non-commercial”. What that actually means is that the person is not giving the advice that people want to hear, which is quite different from not being commercial; it means that the person actually has regard for the law, and that is unpopular. We have seen examples of that. It is well known that the in-house counsel for the Post Office stopped being invited to meetings because she was not providing the advice on the law that people wanted to hear, so the board and the chief exec just started shutting her out.

It definitely happens in legal contexts and financial services contexts. People’s performance starts to be criticised very heavily, but to the person advising them there will be a systematic set of evidence that shows that they were being performance managed. The person advising the client has to tell them, “This is high risk. Your employer is going to say that you were underperforming. I am going to say, on your behalf, that you were being penalised for whistleblowing, but some of this will depend on what the tribunal finds on the day.” That is quite a difficult environment in which to advise people to continue to whistleblow.

The second line of case law that is really problematic in a whistleblowing context is about the irreconcilable breakdown of relationships. There is a whole line of case law about how badly people fall out with their colleagues when they start whistleblowing. I have seen that in an NHS context—in fact, the line of case law comes from an NHS context. The employer says, “Oh, no—you haven’t been penalised for whistleblowing. You’re an impossible human being. You are impossible to work with. You have fallen out with all your colleagues and you have been dismissed completely legitimately for another substantial reason: you cannot work with anyone, and that is compromising patient safety.”

I have watched an NHS trust systematically trying to line up a member of staff—it is clear from reading the papers—to say that they absolutely cannot get on with their colleagues any more. It carried out independent investigations to find that the person cannot get on with their colleagues. The reason why the person cannot get on with their colleagues is that they are repeatedly raising concerns about their clinical practice, which those people do not want to hear, so they all round on the whistleblower. The case law on the irreconcilable breakdown of relationships is hugely problematic for whistleblowers, and we need clarity in the law such that employers cannot hide behind—or frankly, construct—an irreconcilable breakdown of the relationship to hide, and make potentially lawful, a dismissal that in any other circumstance would clearly be a whistleblowing dismissal.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset for securing the debate, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. There is a significant need for legal change in this area.

15:05

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this important debate, during which I wish to talk about the contribution of whistleblowers through the specific lens of tackling economic crime—an endeavour to which I dedicated almost 15 years of my life.

Economic crime costs this country an eye-watering £350 billion a year. That is the equivalent of 15% of our GDP, siphoned away by fraudsters, the corrupt, bribe takers, and the organised crime gangs that thrive off illicit finance, and yet the UK allocates a meagre 0.05% of its GDP to law enforcement agencies that are tasked with combating this national threat. Our public finances are in a very challenging position, so we need to give those agencies cost-effective tools to catch the criminals, recover stolen assets and hold corporations to account. That is why we must empower one of our most powerful underutilised resources: whistleblowers.

Whistleblowers are the eyes and ears inside organisations where economic crime is committed. They are our frontline allies. Often, they are the only ones who can see fraud taking place or corruption being buried, and yet all too often they are ignored, unsupported or, regrettably, even punished for speaking out. Let me be clear: if we are serious about tackling economic crime, we must also be serious about supporting whistleblowers.

The evidence is compelling. Research by the campaign group Spotlight on Corruption found that in the United States from 1986 to 2022, whistleblowers were responsible for 69% of all the proceeds that the Department of Justice recovered through civil fraud cases involving Government funds. That it not a trickle; it amounts to an incredible $50.4 billion out of the $72.6 billion recovered by the US DOJ in that period. That is a flood of stolen public money returned to taxpayers because someone had the courage to speak up. The UK should learn from that example.

Our system does not work as well as it could for whistleblowers. Speaking up about wrongdoing can lead to the end of someone’s career, and it can mean personal, psychological and financial ruin, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) admirably spoke about. As researchers at the Centre for Finance and Security at RUSI have made clear, moral motivation alone is not enough to sustain a whistleblowing culture. We need a systemic shift and a new approach that recognises whistleblowers as vital sources of intelligence, not just idealists acting out of principle.

The Post Office Horizon scandal came to light not because of Government oversight, but because brave individuals took it upon themselves to blow the whistle. The Danske Bank money laundering affair, which involved €200 billion in illicit funds flowing through Estonia, unravelled thanks to an insider who refused to look away. Those are not isolated examples; they are warnings of what happens when systems fail and people are silenced. We must do better.

What can be done? The all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, of which I am a member, has put forward two measures in its economic crime manifesto that could make the UK a leader, not a laggard, when it comes to whistleblower protection and impact.

First, the manifesto proposes that companies must be required to investigate whistleblower concerns relating to economic crime, with independent oversight of those investigations. Too many companies currently treat whistleblowing as a reputational threat to manage, not a red flag to act on. I know that myself having spent more than a decade tackling economic crime and bribery in the financial services sector. Employees raise concerns, but they can be swiftly buried or dismissed, and there is no statutory duty to take the disclosures seriously and no independent body to check whether an investigation was conducted fairly, or even at all. That must change. We should compel companies to treat whistleblowing disclosures with the seriousness they deserve and ensure oversight to prevent cover-ups; otherwise, the very people who know what is happening are driven into silence or despair.

Secondly, the Government should look at the merits of establishing a central, easily accessible, secure and responsive whistleblowing body that can offer advice, support and a safe route to report wrongdoing. Currently, potential whistleblowers are left navigating a bureaucratic maze. They often do not know who to turn to and, when they do, they might be met with silence, confusion or—worse—retaliation. We must take this out of the shadows. A central body would not only simplify the process for blowing the whistle, but build trust, ensure consistency and act as a much-needed conduit between whistleblowers and law enforcement.

I welcome the leadership shown by the Serious Fraud Office under its director Nick Ephgrave. The SFO has rightly identified whistleblower incentivisation reform as a key strategic priority for 2025-26. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset mentioned, it is vital that we have a framework for rewarding and supporting those who blow the whistle. I accept that that marks a critical shift in thinking, from viewing whistleblowers as risks to seeing them as assets. Strengthening our whistleblowing framework would help law enforcement gather evidence earlier, reduce investigative delays and save public funds.

With the withdrawal of US leadership on this front internationally, has the Minister considered that strengthening our own whistleblowing framework and incentivisation schemes could prompt more whistleblowers from other jurisdictions to view the UK as a jurisdiction of choice in which to blow the whistle? That could have economic benefits for our agencies and the Exchequer.

Ultimately, we need to engender a cultural shift—one that reframes whistleblowing not as betrayal, but as public service, and says to financial professionals, civil servants and corporate employees alike, “If you see wrongdoing, we’ve got your back.” That is why I pay tribute to the whistleblowing charity Protect, which for decades has supported individuals who took the hardest step of all: to tell the truth in the face of adversity. Its work is so important, because economic crime is not victimless. It robs pensioners, rips off taxpayers and funds everything from kleptocracy abroad to serious organised criminals peddling drugs or firearms at home.

Whistleblowers help us see the unseen, name the unnamed and hold the untouchable to account. I call on the Minister to look at giving whistleblowers the legal backing and institutional support they deserve; learn from the United States, where whistleblowing incentives drive billions in recoveries; and, above all, let us create a system that protects those who protect the public interest.

15:13

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on obtaining this extremely important debate. We have heard quality information from colleagues around the Chamber on how this matter needs to be tackled for the common good of the United Kingdom. Clearly, the law is not strong enough on whistleblowing. People leave themselves open to harm if they do the right thing. As colleagues have said, the Government should have their backs, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

Colleagues have highlighted that there needs to be a change of culture. Some parts of the aviation industry are very good on their culture: among air traffic controllers, there is openness and transparency. Things are shared not just when there are crashes, but when near misses happen and lessons can be learned. We need exactly that openness and transparency in industry and in society more generally. Whistleblowers cast a light into dark corners.

I want to reflect on the occasions during my time as a servant of Torbay that I have come across whistleblowers who have had a positive impact. I sat on a tribunal in respect of a social worker; whistleblowers had played a significant role in the local authority’s parting ways with him, and he was struck off because of the issues that whistleblowers raised. Waste management in Torbay is another area where a whistleblower stepped out from among his colleagues and shared some challenges. That was some years ago, and matters were taken in hand and positive changes made.

On the international scene, one has only to look at Boeing and a gentleman called John Barnett, who had worked for the company for more than 30 years as a quality control manager. He blew the whistle about serious concerns, yet sadly he was not protected and he ended up committing suicide a little over a year ago. Those are some of the real challenges that we see, both close to home for me in Torbay and internationally, and examples of how whistleblowers act in the best interests of our communities.

Non-disclosure arrangements often play a part in this world. They are meant to be purely about intellectual property rights, but they are often used to silence people. I experienced a situation a few years ago in which, due to my disability, there was wrongdoing that could have been taken to the law. Compensation was paid, which I passed on to charities of my choice, but I still had to sign a non-disclosure agreement, even though the company in question had picked up better ways and should have been sharing that.

Liberal Democrats want an office of the whistleblower to be created, and we want laws on whistleblowing to be strengthened so that people are protected, but most of all we need a culture change, with a culture of belief and support for whistleblowers. As colleagues have said throughout the debate, they do so much good for our society as a whole.

15:17

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this important debate. We have had a short but good debate with well-informed contributions from all right hon. and hon. Members. I am pleased to speak about the contribution of whistleblowers —the men and women who often, at great personal cost, speak truth to power and expose wrongdoing that threatens the public interest.

Whistleblowers are a vital component of any transparent and accountable society. From exposing financial misconduct in public contracts to raising the alarm about unsafe practices in hospitals, schools and the criminal justice system, they are often the first line of defence against systemic failure. They help protect taxpayer money, uphold ethical standards and, in some cases, save lives. Under the previous Conservative Government, we took their contribution seriously. We recognised that whistleblowers must be supported, not silenced. That is why we commissioned a comprehensive review of the UK’s whistleblowing framework. That review, launched in 2023, aimed to modernise the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, reflecting the changing nature of workplaces, technology and organisational cultures.

We took concrete steps. The last Government expanded the list of prescribed persons—independent bodies to whom whistleblowers can safely report wrongdoing. We introduced new protections for whistleblowers in health and social care, ensuring that staff who spoke up about abuse or unsafe conditions could not be victimised or dismissed. We supported the establishment of confidential reporting channels across Government Departments, particularly in defence procurement and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, where vast sums of public money are at stake.

We also supported the Office of the Whistleblower Bill, championed in the other place by Baroness Kramer and others—a cross-party effort that recognised that current enforcement is fragmented and that an independent body with real teeth is essential if we are to protect whistleblowers and punish retaliation effectively. I regret to say that the current Government are undoing much of that progress.

[Sarah Russell]

My recollection of the development of the law during that time is that the cap on unfair dismissal awards applied to whistleblowing, which made it much more difficult for me to get adequate compensation for my clients, particularly if they were high earners in the financial services sector.

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Lady clearly has a great deal of experience as a solicitor before her election to this place. I am not trying to make the case that everything is as it should be—in fact, I just said that the system clearly needs reform—but I think the last Conservative Government should be proud of concrete steps they took, which I hope will be built on by the new Government, but at the moment, the evidence is pointing the other way.

Despite warm words about transparency and ethics in public life, Labour has shown a concerning reluctance to strengthen whistleblower protections. The much anticipated response to the 2023 review has been repeatedly delayed. In the meantime, those brave enough to speak up remain exposed to career-ending retaliation, blacklisting or legal threats.

Worse still, Labour has quietly watered down safeguards in some of the very sectors where whistleblowers are most needed. I point, for example, to the recent decision to roll back reforms on anonymous reporting in the national health service. In the name of organisational cohesion, Labour is silencing dissent and discouraging staff from flagging issues that could directly impact patient safety.

[Sarah Russell]

I need to apologise to the shadow Minister—I was inaccurate on that last point, so I just want to correct the record.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s correction. This House would be a far better place if everyone corrected their errors in a much timelier manner. We all make mistakes, and it is good when we stand up and admit to them.

This same attitude is evident in the Government’s approach to transparency in the armed forces. Those on the Conservative Front Bench in the other place have been pressing the Government to include a whistleblowing function in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. The noble Baroness Goldie’s amendments would give armed forces personnel the ability to raise a whistleblowing complaint to the commissioner, with the commissioner required to investigate and ensure complete anonymity. The Government have repeatedly opposed adding a whistleblowing function to that Bill. Labour peers and MPs have voted against the noble Baroness Goldie’s amendments three times to date, arguing that they are unnecessary.

The Government have claimed these amendments could make it less likely for someone to come forward purely by including the terms “whistleblower” and “whistleblowing”, yet that language is already widely used in such schemes. The NHS has a whistleblowing scheme known as the freedom to speak up policy, which directly uses the term “whistleblowing”. The Children’s Commissioner issues an annual whistleblowing report. To say that those terms would discourage people from raising issues is a fallacy and is not consistent with Government policy. If Labour was serious about this, it would have backed our amendment that would allow whistleblowers to come forward to the commissioner.

We have also seen worrying reports that Labour’s planned overhaul of procurement oversight may remove mandatory reporting requirements that flag up the fraud or conflicts of interest that are often brought to light by whistleblowers working inside those systems. That is not the direction we should be travelling in. A Government who are truly confident in their integrity should not fear whistleblowers; they should welcome them. They are not saboteurs, and they are not disloyal—they are patriots who put principle before personal gain, and they deserve better.

The Opposition remain committed to championing whistleblower protections. We believe in robust and enforceable safeguards. We believe in the need for an independent body to investigate whistleblower complaints and to protect those who speak up, and we will continue to hold the Government to account for any failure to protect those who protect the public interest.

15:25

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate on the contribution of whistleblowers. I thank all the Members who have contributed to it. I join my hon. Friend’s tribute to those who blow the whistle, and I acknowledge the comments from various Members that the whistleblowing framework may not be operating as effectively as it could be. I welcome the many views expressed on potential reforms.

Whistleblowers play a valuable role in shining a light on wrongdoing. Workers who blow the whistle deserve to be taken seriously and not treated poorly by their employers for doing the right thing. The Public Interest Disclosure Act was considered world leading in 1998, when it amended the Employment Rights Act 1996 to introduce protections for whistleblowers. Those protections ensure that workers who blow the whistle on certain types of wrongdoing are protected from dismissal or detriment if certain conditions are met. That is known as a protected disclosure.

For a worker to receive protection, they must reasonably believe that a disclosure is in the public interest; the disclosure must concern one or more of the types of wrongdoing listed in the Act, such as a criminal offence or a danger to health and safety, and the worker must make the disclosure to their employer, another responsible person or one of the organisations prescribed in legislation. There are more than 90 prescribed persons that a worker may make a protective disclosure to, including many regulators that we are familiar with, such as the Financial Conduct Authority and the Health and Safety Executive. The list of prescribed persons is regularly updated and has been updated in the past 12 months. I hope that allays the concern of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who said that we are rolling back on these issues.

Our protections are strong, but it is fair to say that, after a quarter of a century, there is work to be done to modernise the framework. A whole range of issues have been raised about how we may improve things. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset asked whether there should be a duty on employers to investigate when a disclosure is made. Currently, there is no legal requirement for employers to investigate protected disclosures, which sadly enables some employers to ignore a disclosure or to fail to take the necessary corrective actions to address whistleblowing reports, although, as I have mentioned, there are a great number of external bodies that whistleblowers can report matters to, should their employer not take action.

We should acknowledge that many employers have policies and procedures in place that they follow in good faith to ensure that action is taken. That is particularly the case in some of the sectors that are heavily regulated. A general duty to investigate does raise questions about what that would actually entail: what would a good duty look like? Disclosures can be made on a wide range of issues, so we need to think carefully about how such a duty would work in practice. One of the structural issues with the legislation is that a disclosure can be made and investigated, but that does not prevent detrimental treatment or dismissal for the individual. The protections are effectively retrospective in their application, but that is an important point that we will consider further.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset proposed adopting the US model of financial incentives, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) raised a similar issue. We will certainly consider those matters. Hon. Members may be aware from the autumn Budget, as reaffirmed at the spring statement by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), that the Government will strengthen HMRC’s scheme for rewarding informants to encourage reporting of high-value tax fraud and tax avoidance. A new scheme will launch later this year, which will look to target serious non-compliance by large companies, wealthy individuals, and offshore avoidance schemes. It will take some inspiration from successful US and Canadian models, which were referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West. He mentioned that $50.4 billion had been recovered thanks to whistleblowers in the US. I am sure that the Chancellor would be very receptive to that kind of figure finding its way into her coffers.

I will look at the recommendations made by the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West mentioned. Importantly, he pointed out that companies facing a disclosure often look at it as a reputational threat rather than a wrong to be corrected. That is a very wise observation about the current deficiencies in the scheme. Actually, that issue is often about the culture in organisations rather than the legal framework. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) referred to the profound and effective cultural shift in the airline safety sector, which has helped people to feel empowered to speak up.

As always, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a strong contribution. He mentioned his friend Brian, as he has done previously. He said that for Brian, doing the right thing was the natural thing to do, but that does not mean it was any less courageous. I pay tribute to Brian and the hon. Member for Strangford for raising his issues. He astutely observed that the clue is in the name—these are protected disclosures, and at the moment, protection does not always follow disclosure.

The contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell), as we would expect, drew heavily on her legal experience, for which I am always grateful. She mentioned a recent EU directive about expanding the definition of those covered by whistleblowing. A number of arguments are being put forward to expand the current legal definition beyond workers, including calls to include the self-employed—as we know, there are a whole range of employment protections for which the self-employed do not have parity with workers or directly employed individuals—but also non-executive directors and charity trustees. I recognise that Protect has been working and campaigning on this issue for a good period of time. I met representatives of Protect earlier this year, and my officials will continue to engage with them on these important issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton also mentioned the question of legal tests. There is awareness in government that employers sometimes rely on reasons that are not, on the face of it, directly related to protected disclosure but are, as my hon. Friend articulately set out, very much related to that when we get underneath into the detail. That particularly relates to the idea that providing unwelcome advice is being classed as a performance issue. I recognise the characterisation of irretrievable breakdowns in the workplace, which can happen for a number of reasons, including when a whistleblower does not feel that their voice is being heard. I recognise those concerns.

Another point we need to reflect on is that there is not enough public awareness and knowledge of how whistleblowing legislation works. Many workers are unsure of their rights or how to make disclosures within the current framework. Indeed, when I was in practice, I recall telling individuals who had talked to me about their situation at work that they had probably made a protected disclosure. They had never thought about what they did in those terms, but the law was there to protect them.

The framework entitles people to bring employment tribunal cases to seek a remedy following dismissal or detrimental treatment, but that is often a slow, costly and complex method of redress. I was concerned to hear the statistics my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset gave about the success rates for those claims. If an individual is in an employment tribunal having made a protected disclosure, it is almost certain that that employment relationship has come to an end anyway. I also recognise that the framework does not actually require confidentiality or anonymity for whistleblowers, which can sometimes deter people for fear of retribution.

A number of Members asked whether we should have an office of the whistleblower. As the shadow Minister says, proposals have been made in the other place. My understanding is that such an office would not only protect whistleblowers, oversee whistleblowing processes and enforce compliance and reporting standards, but establish new criminal sanctions for non-compliance. It would be a significant change to the existing framework. There are a number of different suggestions about how it would operate in practice, but it is something we are taking an interest in.

The shadow Minister asked about the Grant Thornton review, which began under the Conservative Government. I can commit to that report being realised very shortly. It does not make recommendations for reform, but it provides some observations and insights into how the current framework operates. As one would expect, it has obtained stakeholder feedback and there has been a literature review. We will be able to build on it moving forward.

The shadow Minister also characterised—I think unfairly—our approach as regressive. He will know that the Employment Rights Bill includes additional protections for whistleblowers and those who speak up about sexual harassment. I do not expect he will support the Bill, even though it includes those measures. He mentioned the changes in the NHS framework. The freedom to speak up process still applies in the NHS. On the armed forces suggestions, the whole purpose of the Bill is to give a framework for people to be able to speak up about their treatment, including families of those in the armed forces.

The protections in the Bill, which is now in the other place, will signal to employers that workers who make protected disclosures about sexual harassment in particular must be treated fairly. Workers will have legal recourse if their employer subjects them to detriment for speaking up about sexual harassment. We have also committed to implementing professional standards for NHS managers to hold them accountable for silencing whistleblowers or endangering patients through misconduct. As we heard from the Prime Minister earlier today, we remain fully committed to introducing a Hillsborough law, which will include a legal duty of candour for public servants and sanctions for those who refuse to comply.

The recent Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) (Amendment) Order 2025 allows workers to make protected disclosures to relevant Government Departments or on suspected breaches of sanctions. These changes will help workers to qualify for employment protections when disclosing to Government information relating to financial, transport and certain trade sanctions, and seek redress should they suffer detriment or dismissal at work due to making a protected disclosure.

I appreciate that we need to consider many issues. A range of ideas has been put forward, and it is important that we take the opportunity to explore them further, so that we find the right solutions that work for everyone in the economy, and give whistleblowers the protection that everyone agrees they need.

15:42

[Lloyd Hatton]

I would like to conclude today’s debate by summarising some of the helpful and constructive contributions of hon. Members. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for outlining the bravery of his constituent Brian. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) for describing the high-risk culture around whistleblowers and the fear that it creates for many.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), who has been a tireless champion on this issue, for highlighting, first, the scale of the economic crime epidemic that we face in the UK, and secondly, the critical role of whistleblowers in tackling the problem head on. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) for making it clear that we are a stronger society because of whistleblowers, and that when they come forward in the public interest, we all benefit.

Finally, I thank the Minister for his remarks. He was right to outline that the current framework is in need of modernisation and does not deal with the challenges that we face. I look forward to further action from the Government. I also welcome his looking at the US model and seeing how it works to adequately reward and protect whistleblowers. I hope that we can learn from that example. I welcome what he said about HMRC, and urge him and the whole Government to be bold in properly empowering and equipping HMRC to work more effectively with whistleblowers and to tackle the scandal of aggressive tax avoidance and evasion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the contribution of whistleblowers.

15:42

Sitting suspended.